[In "Ut Unum Sint" the Pope declared himself open to negotiation on what form papal primacy would take in a reunited Church, and clearly stated that the basis for such primacy would be the first-millenium situation, not the way in which primacy has been exercised in the post-Schism RCC. Show me one piece of evidence that he was insincere in this offer. ]

And, hasn't the Pope also stated publically that the issue of 'papal primacy' is not negiotable? At least, thats what I have read in more than one Roman Catholic post dealing with this subject.

[Stop pretending that the Pope's current overtures of peace are themselves intrinsically imperialistic. If you judge Rome irredeemable because of the past, say so.]

If he won't I will. Where has papal imperialism changed up to this point? If it has, then there should be a UGC Patriarch in Ukraine. The UGC's wouldn't have to be so paranoid about addressing their leader as Patriarch within earshot of the Pope! The Ukrainain Catholic bishops wouldn't still have to petition Rome to retire. There wouldn't have to be a Roman Catholic Bishop present at the consecration of a new Uniate bishop before the consecration of that new bishop can take place. And I could go on. But I think I have already made my point.

[If you want to call us schismatics and not part of the Catholic Church and condemn us and the Orthodox Saints that you venerate who died while not being in communion with Rome, you and the Latin's I can assure you will still be prayed for.]

Right on Matthew! Including St Job of Pochaev who was a fierce defender of Orthodoxy against the Unia! Yet some uniate Icons portray him wearing western vestments!

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

I think if you read the below you may understand that the Orthodox are not just looking at things only in light of the historic actions of Rome but more recent times as well. I understand that EWTN is not an infallible Television station, nevertheless what they say and do is out there for people to see and hear and it certainly creates the impression that it is an extension or a forum to present the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and reflect Latin thought.

STATEMENT BY PATRIARCH ALEXY II OF MOSCOW AND ALL RUSSIA AND THE HOLY SYNOD OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

It was announced on February 11 in the Vatican that the Pope John Paul II of Rome decided to elevate the status of the administrative structures of the Roman Catholic Church in the territory of Russia to the level of dioceses. From now on the Vatican in its documents will name the territory of our country a “church province” led by a metropolitan.

The Russian Orthodox Church has been presented with a fait accompli, whereas such matters, in our opinion, require a preliminary discussion. We see this step as unfriendly and undermining the prospects for better relations between the two Churches.

Historically the Catholic Church in the territory of our country took pastoral care of the flock that traditionally belonged to it - Poles, Lithuanians, Germans, etc. Precisely for this reason the territory of Russia was not divided into Catholic dioceses and the Catholic ethnic parishes were part of the dioceses of Mogilev and Tiraspol. The establishment of a “church province”, a “metropolitanate”, means in fact the establishment of a national Catholic Church in Russia having its center in Moscow and claiming the Russian people, who are the flock of the Russian Orthodox Church culturally, spiritually and historically, as its flock.

The formation of such a church in Russia means in fact a challenge to Orthodoxy which has been rooted in the country for centuries. Nothing of this sort has ever happen in the history of our country. Moreover, this form of the organization of Catholic church life is atypical even of Catholic countries where there are no church provinces or dioceses governed actually by a metropolitan.

The fact should be pointed out that in taking care of its faithful in Catholic countries, the Russian Orthodox Church has never tried to establish church institutions parallel to Catholic ones. Our dioceses are established to take care of the Russian-speaking Orthodox diaspora, that is the children of the Russian Church who are far from their Motherland, not to carry out missionary work among the local population. If the Catholic Church worked in Russia with the same tact and good will as we do in Catholic countries, then no difficulties would arise in our relations.

We see as absolutely wrongful the references made by representatives of the Roman Catholic Church to the Catholic structures which existed in Russia before the 1917 Revolution and which they say they restore. Almost all the Roman Catholic dioceses that existed in the Russian empire by the early 20th century were in the territory of what today are Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine and Belorussia and did not have one center in the Russian capital city or any other city. The boundaries of our country as well as the ethnic and confessional composition of its population have considerably changed since. The number of Catholics in the present-day Russia is incomparably smaller than it was in the Russian Empire of the 20th century.

We are convinced that to take care of the Catholics who are not so many in our country it was not necessary to elevate the status of the already existing Catholic church structures, the more so to establish a special church division. Such actions of the Roman Catholic Church, not conditioned by any real pastoral needs, expose the missionary purposes of the changes made. This is corroborated by numerous facts of missionary work carried out by Catholic clergy among the Russian population. This is the activity we call proselytic and keep pointing to as one of the basic obstacles for improving relations between our two Churches.

It is especially regretful that the Vatican has taken this decision just before the next round of official talks between our Churches is to take place in the end of this February. As a result, a serious threat has emerged for the fragile negotiation process, which in its turn will make extremely difficult the settlement of problems and perplexities existing between us.

The leadership of the Roman Catholic Church is now responsible before God and history for a sharp aggravation of our relations, for the frustration of the hope for their normalization that has just begun to shape. The Vatican’s action has put in jeorpady the ability of the Catholic West and the Orthodox East to cooperate as two great civilizations for the benefit of Europe and the world. The opportunity for common Christian witness before divided humanity has been sacrificed for momentary benefits.

The question arises: Does the Vatican still regard its relations with the Orthodox Church as those of dialogue and cooperation, as it has continually stated, or it sees Orthodoxy as an undesirable rival? If the latter is the case, any agreement between us is out of question.

Nevertheless, we continue to remind the Vatican that at a time when the confused world expects the Orthodox and the Catholics to take common public action, we should work together rather than be at enmity. We still have good relations with dioceses, parishes and monasteries of the Catholic Church and cooperation with Catholic humanitarian organizations and educational institutions. These examples make it possible to hope that, whatever difficulties provoked by the Vatican’s mistaken policy towards the Russian Orthodox Church, relations between the Orthodox and the Catholics will develop to become an important factor in the preservation of Christian values in the life of Europe and the world.

Addressing our flock, we call them to be faithful to Holy Orthodoxy. Let us respond calmly and peacefully but firmly to any attempts to divide our people spiritually. “Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace” (Eph. 6:14-15).

"The fact should be pointed out that in taking care of its faithful in Catholic countries, the Russian Orthodox Church has never tried to establish church institutions parallel to Catholic ones. Our dioceses are established to take care of the Russian-speaking Orthodox diaspora, that is the children of the Russian Church who are far from their Motherland, not to carry out missionary work among the local population. If the Catholic Church worked in Russia with the same tact and good will as we do in Catholic countries, then no difficulties would arise in our relations."

The double standard at play again. Lets see the Metopolitan of Warsaw and All Poland, the Metropolitan of Vienna and All Austria, The Metropolitan of Prague and All Czech Lands, The Orthodox Church of France, the last two being founded by dissenting Roman Catholics. According to Moscow's reasoning the above Metropolitanates should not exist and they should be served by auxillary bishops subject directly to the Patriach nor should they seek or accept non-Russian converts becasue the MP does not act like the Catholic Church.

"Almost all the Roman Catholic dioceses that existed in the Russian empire by the early 20th century were in the territory of what today are Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine and Belorussia and did not have one center in the Russian capital city or any other city."

In fact they had two. The Diocese of Tiraspol, named to honor the ancient city of Cherson on which Tiraspol stands and site of the martydom of Pope St. Clement, actually had its seat in Saratov and the majority of it faithful were Volga Germans in Russia proper. The Diocese of Vladivostok served the faithful of Siberian Russian. In the Soviet era the only functioning Catholic Churches were in Moscow and St. Petersburg.

"We still have good relations with dioceses, parishes and monasteries of the Catholic Church and cooperation with Catholic humanitarian organizations and educational institutions."

Read as: "Even though we continue to harass the Catholic Church in Russia, we gladly continue to accept any money Catholics like Aid to the Church in Need are handing out."

I don't know anything about the icon, and I'll stipulate that it should have gone to its rightful owners without strings attached (although I didn't interpret the Pope that way, I thought he just wanted to present the icon as a gesture of reconciliation). But this discussion raises an issue for me. How is it in any sense of the word Christian to tell someone that they're not welcome to visit you?

I don't think it matters that the Pope is Polish. I don't think the Pope would be welcome in Russia whatever his nationality. With all that the Popes have pulled on the Orthodox in Eastern Europe over the centuries, no Pope is trusted.

It is hard to open the door for a visit when you speak with people who want your family and house that you are to watch over even though they tell you that they don't but seem to be casing the place and making plans in or about your house and your family that they don't tell you about. It is furthermore difficult when you speak with those you tell you they seek to be your guests and agree to things and then present agreements that differ from the original agreements.

If one wants to believe that he is not welcome because he is a pole, or the Patriarch of Moscow is not Christian or engaged in unchristian behavior in any sense of the word because he considers the actions of Rome to be aggressive and tells the bishop of Rome and company that they are not welcome to visit then you are free to think as you will. However disagreements between Christians are not uncommon as we can read in a letter written by Saint Gregory the theologian to Saint Basil that one of the posters here brings to our attention; "Do leave off speaking of me as an ill-educated and uncouth and unfriendly man, not even worthy to live."

Please note Saint Gregory did not suggest that Saint Basil was unchristian in any sense of the word, that seems to exceed the realm of what he had in mind. Be further advised I'm sure I've said or done worse, hence you would be implying that I and maybe others that have done worse are unchristian or behaved in a unchristian way in any sense of the word as well. I think your conclusion might be worth reconsidering for it was rendered with confidence, but certainly not unchristian from my perspective, for there may be Christians who are capable of telling someone they are not welcome or evaluating other peoples behavior. I'm guilty of that as well. I once threw someone I loved out of my house and was verbally very abusive because I was mad. As a matter of fact, I have seen an entire family thrown out of a house by a group of Christians. As such by your logic I'm unchristian as well or I behaved in an unchristian way on that occasion and many more. Nevertheless, God permits me to go to Church and pray and worship and pay attention. Actually when I think about it, even when I was a very young child and very innocent in comparison to my latter years, I often behaved in ways that fell well short of the aforemention standard that you have articulated. I have even seen a group of Christians try to throw out of his house a very innocent Bishop. It appears that it can be a struggle to be a Christian and always live up to the standard of behavior that is determined or presented for consideration. There are many incidents that all of us could mention in recent times as well as much earlier times. I recall that Saint Nicholas the bishop of Myra at the first Ecumenical Council at Nicaea slapped a Bishop from Alexandria by the name of Arius, Saint Nicholas was deemed not worthy to be a Bishop any longer after the incident. Suffice it say several Orthodox Church Fathers shortly there after shared a common dream in which Christ and the Theotokas reinstated him as a bishop.

I believe that Patriarch Alexy is a Christian even though he told someone that they're not welcome to visit him, how could I say otherwise with some knowledge of my sinful life?

It raises an issue with me as well, it appears that both of us who are Christians are aware of it.

[I don't think it matters that the Pope is Polish. I don't think the Pope would be welcome in Russia whatever his nationality. With all that the Popes have pulled on the Orthodox in Eastern Europe over the centuries, no Pope is trusted.]

You hit the nail on the head! That plus the fact that the Russians aren't so stupid that they don't realize that the Pope, as a Pole, must be quite aware of the centuries of Polish aggression towards the land of 'Rus' and it's Holy Orthodox Church. If he wasn't, I'm quite sure there was someone around who explained it to him during the time he held the Icon for ransom. That, in itself, shows the insensitivity of his actions that no Russian (Orthodox or not) could not see through.

The Pope never got over the fact that he was not invited for the 1000 years of Christianity in 'Rus' in 1988. He waited and waited for an invitation even though the Chronicles clearly show that St Vladimirs envoys chose Constantinople OVER ROME! Once again, the was no reason, historical or otherwise for him to be there!

[That is a sad statement indeed.]

Yes it is sad when someone insists on trying to push themselves where they are not wanted OR NEEDED!

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

While much is said (and I think in large part, rightly) in criticism of the apparent double-mindedness of the Vatican in it's relations with the Orthodox Church, I think it's time Orthodox Christians look to their own local Churches as being part of the problem.

The fact of the matter is, whatever the duplicity of the Roman Catholics, is there not just a little bit of this on the part of Orthodox ecumenists themselves? Orthodox ecumenists also sign those "joint statements" recognizing a certain legitimacy in their Roman Catholic peers. Yet, the Orthodox Church undoubtedly has a presence in the western world, and without doubt not only receives converts from the RC's, but often does so with what would be viewed by the Latins as a "repetition of sacraments" (ecumenists will practically never "re"-baptize Roman Catholic converts, though they very often will Chrismate them). Is there not great duplicity in this?

The real solution would be for Orthodox ecumenists to stop being just that - "ecumenists." The word "ecumenical" in Orthodox (and one time, in Roman Catholic usage) had the meaning of refering to something pertaining to the inner life of the Church. In a sense that hasn't really changed; the problem is that the ecumenists have simply "stretched" the meaning of "Church", so as to in somewise include those who are not simply outside of the canonical unity of Orthodoxy (schismatics), but who by way of addition and subtraction hold to a different doctrine than the Orthodox Church (heterodoxy.)

If you want to scream at John Paul II and his cohorts, fine - but I think we should be screaming even louder at our "Orthodox" heirarchs who consider it a mandate of their ministry to involve themselves in varying ways in this ecumenist movement, since presumably being Orthodox, I'd like to think we would expect more of them.

If there is going to be any "dialogue" with the Latins, it has to be based in reality. Not an ecumenistic dialogue, but one imbued with the consciousness of being the "Church of Christ", approaching (with sobriety) the Latins on the basis of returning them to the doctrinal and canonical unity of the Orthodox Church. Evidences could be courteously tabled as to how the Latins have transgressed, and what would be necessary for their return, and why they must return if they want to honour the memory of their great, ancient Fathers and save their own souls from a world which is perishing.

This would be something laudable, even if it ultimatly failed. At least a failure would make quite clear where we all really stand - as opposed to the waffling and false equivocations which are the bread and butter of ecumenism.

As it stands, the ecumenist movement is never going to bring us "Orthodox Latins". There is simply no potential in the premises of this movement (which starts from the foundation that there are no valid censures against either party, and that we all are somehow participants in a greater "invisible" Church) for such a conversion. If we're lucky, it will end in futility, with only the damage this movement has created within the Orthodox fold to be remedied. At worst, this movement is going to create another false union, a sort of "humanistic Florence" - for that is what the current process does have the potential for.

[As it stands, the ecumenist movement is never going to bring us "Orthodox Latins". There is simply no potential in the premises of this movement (which starts from the foundation that there are no valid censures against either party, and that we all are somehow participants in a greater "invisible" Church) for such a conversion. If we're lucky, it will end in futility, with only the damage this movement has created within the Orthodox fold to be remedied. At worst, this movement is going to create another false union, a sort of "humanistic Florence" - for that is what the current process does have the potential for.]

AMEN!

Orthodoc (the anti ecumenist)

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

I have had enough of this subject, it is like talking to the deaf, so be vindictive and isolated, people of closed and uncompassionate minds, reliving the wounds of the past, casting blame on those of the present.

I am of Roman & Eastern Catholic roots, but dare I spread poison words, nor live in the dark past, if I live in the past I cannot take care of today.

I will not ask for your help Orthodoc, nor do I need what you are giving.

james

« Last Edit: August 19, 2004, 11:48:15 AM by Jakub »

Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.

It is hard to open the door for a visit when you speak with people who want your family and house that you are to watch over even though they tell you that they don't but seem to be casing the place and making plans in or about your house and your family that they don't tell you about. It is furthermore difficult when you speak with those you tell you they seek to be your guests and agree to things and then present agreements that differ from the original agreements.

If one wants to believe that he is not welcome because he is a pole, or the Patriarch of Moscow is not Christian or engaged in unchristian behavior in any sense of the word because he considers the actions of Rome to be aggressive and tells the bishop of Rome and company that they are not welcome to visit then you are free to think as you will. However disagreements between Christians are not uncommon as we can read in a letter written by Saint Gregory the theologian to Saint Basil that one of the posters here brings to our attention; "Do leave off speaking of me as an ill-educated and uncouth and unfriendly man, not even worthy to live."

Please note Saint Gregory did not suggest that Saint Basil was unchristian in any sense of the word, that seems to exceed the realm of what he had in mind. Be further advised I'm sure I've said or done worse, hence you would be implying that I and maybe others that have done worse are unchristian or behaved in a unchristian way in any sense of the word as well. I think your conclusion might be worth reconsidering for it was rendered with confidence, but certainly not unchristian from my perspective, for there may be Christians who are capable of telling someone they are not welcome or evaluating other peoples behavior. I'm guilty of that as well. I once threw someone I loved out of my house and was verbally very abusive because I was mad. As a matter of fact, I have seen an entire family thrown out of a house by a group of Christians. As such by your logic I'm unchristian as well or I behaved in an unchristian way on that occasion and many more. Nevertheless, God permits me to go to Church and pray and worship and pay attention. Actually when I think about it, even when I was a very young child and very innocent in comparison to my latter years, I often behaved in ways that fell well short of the aforemention standard that you have articulated. I have even seen a group of Christians try to throw out of his house a very innocent Bishop. It appears that it can be a struggle to be a Christian and always live up to the standard of behavior that is determined or presented for consideration. There are many incidents that all of us could mention in recent times as well as much earlier times. I recall that Saint Nicholas the bishop of Myra at the first Ecumenical Council at Nicaea slapped a Bishop from Alexandria by the name of Arius, Saint Nicholas was deemed not worthy to be a Bishop any longer after the incident. Suffice it say several Orthodox Church Fathers shortly there after shared a common dream in which Christ and the Theotokas reinstated him as a bishop.

I believe that Patriarch Alexy is a Christian even though he told someone that they're not welcome to visit him, how could I say otherwise with some knowledge of my sinful life?

It raises an issue with me as well, it appears that both of us who are Christians are aware of it.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Well, Matthew, this is exactly right. We all behave in unchristian ways from time to time, that's why we have confession. And I have to go to confession a lot. But it's not a good idea to act and speak as if our unchristian behavior was righteous.

Look, if the Pope was holding the icon for ransom, he shouldn't have done that (though, I submit, it was a ransom that he wanted to pay to the Patriarch, to wit, the ransom of himself). But to tell the Pope that he is not welcome is just plain unfriendly. We're required to forgive the wrongs that are committed against us personally, let alone wrongs done to religious or ethnic forbearers. And if a previous invasion of Russia by Poland has anything to do with it, as I doubt but as some have suggested, well, that's just ridiculous, especially since an invasion of Poland by Russia has intervened since then and is in the memory of people who are still among us.

Even if we wind up disagreeing on doctrine, the better side of religion for both of us requires that we cease from bearing grudges, especially the historical kind which arise from circumstances that no one now can do anything about.

[I have had enough of this subject, it is like talking to the deaf, so be vindictive and isolated, people of closed and uncompassionate minds, reliving the wounds of the past, casting blame on those of the present. ]

"By their deeds they shall be known."

The knowledge of our past helps us not to make the same mistakes in the future. That's why history is taught in our schools.

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

If found this info while doing a search, apparently ZENIT is a news agency specializing in coverage of the Holy Father, life in the Holy See, and events of interest to the Church. ...

The icon of Kazan, a jewel-encrusted image of the Virgin Mary and Baby Jesus, is considered the protectress of Russia and was the "carrot" in negotiations by the Vatican for a much-desired papal trip to that country.

Who was the quoted source of the use of the word "carrot" or how and why did or would the author of the article arrive at that conclusion?

An Icon the Pope Hoped to Deliver Personally; a Host of Problems

Papal Farewell to an Image Bound for Russia

By Delia Gallagher

ROME, AUG. 26, 2004 (Zenit.org).- This was not the way it was supposed to happen. John Paul II had a different plan in mind for the return of the Icon of Kazan to Russia—he wanted to deliver it personally to Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II, as a sign of rapprochement between the two Churches divided since 1054.

Instead, on Wednesday the Pope said goodbye to the icon, at the Vatican, during an incense-filled Liturgy of the Word celebration in Paul VI Hall.

By handing the icon over to two emissaries, Cardinals Walter Kasper and Theodore McCarrick, who will take it to Russia, the Holy Father has once again shown the world an example of humility in accepting that the most cherished of man's plans are not always God's plans.

"How many times have I prayed to the Mother of God of Kazan," said John Paul II on Wednesday of the icon which has hung over his desk in the papal apartments for the past 10 years, "asking her to protect and guide the Russian people and to precipitate the moment in which all the disciples of her Son, recognizing themselves as brothers, will know how to reconstruct in fullness their compromised unity."

The icon of Kazan, a jewel-encrusted image of the Virgin Mary and Baby Jesus, is considered the protectress of Russia and was the "carrot" in negotiations by the Vatican for a much-desired papal trip to that country.

Despite repeated Vatican efforts to arrange a meeting with Patriarch Alexy II, an invitation from the head of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Pope never came.

In 2003, Alexy II told President Vladimir Putin that the icon at the Vatican "is one of the numerous copies but not the miracle-making icon that disappeared in the early 20th century, so there is no need for the Pontiff to deliver it himself."

Though he will not deliver himself, the Pope's generous gesture may yet have a positive effect on Orthodox-Catholic relations.

"Doubtlessly the return of the Orthodox icon to fatherland is a fair good-will act of the Vatican," a spokesman for the Moscow Patriarchate, Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, told Russian news agency Itar-Tass.

The date and exact provenance of the icon at the Vatican has been disputed.

According to tradition, the original icon was found on July 8, 1579, by a young Russian girl who was told by the Virgin Mary in a dream that the icon was lying under the ashes of a burnt-out building.

Copies of this icon were made in the early 16th and 17th centuries, and in 2003, a joint Russian-Vatican commission established that the icon of Kazan held in the Vatican is a late 17th- or early 18th-century work.

Although it is not the "original," the value of this icon lies also in its mysterious history -- it has traveled the world, from Russia to England, to San Francisco, New York and Fatima before "providentially," as the Pope said, ending up in the Vatican.

In 1904, one of the most venerated copies of the icon was stolen from the cathedral of Kazan in St. Petersburg and, according to expert Marguerite Peeters, the Vatican's icon could well be this one.

How the Icon got out of Russia is unknown. But it appeared at an auction in Poland after World War I and again in the 1950s at an English castle. The Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Leonty, who was living in exile in Paris, traveled to England to see the icon and declared it the original Icon of Kazan.

The icon then made another mysterious trip to the United States, probably sold after the death of the Englishman, though to whom is unknown. It was exhibited at the World's Fair in New York in 1964-65, and in the 1970s an American organization, the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fatima, raised the money to buy the icon.

The Blue Army entrusted the icon to Fatima where John Paul II venerated it in the Byzantine Chapel there on his first visit, May 13, 1982, exactly one year after the attempt on his life.

In 1993, the Blue Army gave the icon to the Pope, to be kept in his papal apartments until it could be restored to the Russian people.

Someone very offendedly asked "are you saying the Catholic Church stole the icon?" or something like that-it does not matter who stole it-stolen property goes back to the rightful owner! Why would the Blue Army and the Vatican deal in stolen property?

AND concerning the Kazan Icon-Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco (Archbishop John Maximovitch, +1966, ROCOR Bishop of Shanghai, 1934-1945, Archbishop of Brussels and Western Europe, Archbishop of San Francisco and Western America) was familiar with the original Kazan Icon in Russia. He said that the Kazan Icon that anded up in the hands of the Blue Army/Vatican, was indeed NOT the original Kazan Icon, as the dimensions were not the same.

ALSO, it is quite obvious that the Blue Army and the Vatican were using the Icon with the agenda "for the conversion of Russia"! Quite shanefully, I might add!

The Blue Army built a small chapel in Fatima for the icons safekeeping, and it remained there until 1993, when it was given to John Paul II, who transferred it to his private apartments in Rome and announced his intention to hand-deliver it to Russia as soon as possible. That is to say, the icon would be returned to Russia based on the false notion that Russia had converted and the promises of Fatima were fulfilled. (4) (4) For a full account of the Blue Army betrayal of their custodianship, see my article Handing Over the Symbolic Icon of Our Lady of Kazan: A Confirmation of a Great Crisis in the Church,The Remnant, January 31, 2001. Thus, the return of the Kazanskaya to the Schismatic patriarch Alexis II would signify that Russia does not need conversion and that the Russian Schismatic Church is not in error. Instead of being a confirmation of the conversion of Russia, as it was initially planned, this return would close the door on the realization of the Fatima message. It would signify that Fatima no longer has relevance for our times. An important part of the Fatima message, one that the present day Vatican seems determined to discount or revise at all account, are the words of the Virgin Mary about Russia. In her July 13 appearance to the three children, Our Lady said she would come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart and the Communion of Reparation of the first Saturdays. If my requests are listened to, Russia will be converted and there will be peace If not, she will spread her errors throughout the world.

Is this satisfactory? Undoubtedly, it will not be for you, but for me, it is quite satisfactory that it shows the shameless exploitation of the Icon by the Roman Catholic fanatics whose desire to "convert Russia" to Papism comes from demonic apparitions at Fatima; the Papacy, by going along with this and not immediately returning the stolen property of the Russian Orthodox Church, show their involvement. Or perhaps you do not believe that stolen goods should be restored to their rightful owners, and that excuses like, "They bought it with their own money" allow those who recieve stolen objects to keep them? If so, you disagree with the laws of the United States. Now, perhaps, you may also object to this being pointed out; I know nor care not. Now, is that all you DEMAND of me? Or must I to jump to your demands with every future post? Well, this WILL be the last time, believe me.

(4) For a full account of the Blue Army betrayal of their custodianship, see my article Handing Over the Symbolic Icon of Our Lady of Kazan: A Confirmation of a Great Crisis in the Church,The Remnant, January 31, 2001.

I'm sorry, but it's generally recognized as bad practice to cite your own authority when someone asks you to cite an authoritative source to support your claims. Where did you get the information for your article?

Quote

Is this satisfactory? Undoubtedly, it will not be for you, but for me, it is quite satisfactory that it shows the shameless exploitation of the Icon by the Roman Catholic fanatics whose desire to "convert Russia" to Papism comes from demonic apparitions at Fatima; the Papacy, by going along with this and not immediately returning the stolen property of the Russian Orthodox Church, show their involvement. Or perhaps you do not believe that stolen goods should be restored to their rightful owners, and that excuses like, "They bought it with their own money" allow those who recieve stolen objects to keep them? If so, you disagree with the laws of the United States. Now, perhaps, you may also object to this being pointed out; I know nor care not. Now, is that all you DEMAND of me? Or must I to jump to your demands with every future post? Well, this WILL be the last time, believe me.

I only asked you to provide authoritative documentation to substantiate the assertions you made on this thread. I did not ask you to voice a personal judgment against me.

Is this satisfactory? Undoubtedly, it will not be for you, but for me, it is quite satisfactory that it shows the shameless exploitation of the Icon by the Roman Catholic fanatics whose desire to "convert Russia" to Papism comes from demonic apparitions at Fatima;

I told myself to not respond to trolls, but I can't resist responding to this one. So are you claiming that the countless millions who venerate Our Lady of Fatima, including many of my family, are venerating the Devil?

(4) For a full account of the Blue Army betrayal of their custodianship, see my article Handing Over the Symbolic Icon of Our Lady of Kazan: A Confirmation of a Great Crisis in the Church,The Remnant, January 31, 2001.

I found the article in question on-line. If A Sombra is claiming to be the author of the piece cited which may be found here: http://www.traditioninaction.org/polemics/F_01_Kazan2_ConfirmsCrisis.htmthen the vehemence against the RCC is surprising considering the some of the other very "Traditionalist" articles that I found by that author. And I'm not sure how such strong Trad. RC sentiments go along with this person's own post of a few months ago in which was stated:

"I was raised as a Roman Catholic, attended Roman Catholic grade and high schools. First interested in Orthodoxy in grade school, where the nun told me (after I had told her about getting information on Orthodoxy from different Orthodox Churches) that I should not read any of it as it was all "trash." Converted to Orthodoxy (ROCOR) at age 35, long, long, long after abandoning Catholicism."

"long, long, long"? The author of the article has others that were published in recent years. I found articles under the name at a site from last month. This is very peculiar: claiming authorship that isn't true, or ad hominems and excessive words against a former Church. Puzzling.

Ebor

« Last Edit: September 19, 2007, 06:06:36 PM by Ebor »

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I found the article in question on-line. If A Sombra is claiming to be the author of the piece cited which may be found here: http://www.traditioninaction.org/polemics/F_01_Kazan2_ConfirmsCrisis.htmthen the vehemence against the RCC is surprising considering the some of the other very "Traditionalist" articles that I found by that author. And I'm not sure how such strong Trad. RC sentiments go along with this person's own post of a few months ago in which was stated:

Most amazing to me is that by claiming authorship of the article in question, A Sombra claims to possess a doctorate, for the author published the article as a Ph.D. and is consistently referred to as Dr. so-and-so.

Most amazing to me is that by claiming authorship of the article in question, A Sombra claims to possess a doctorate, for the author published the article as a Ph.D. and is consistently referred to as Dr. so-and-so.

I havent been on here for quite some time, and come across this nonsense when I was here looking around earlier. You people certianly do have a really warped sense of -I wouldnt even know what to call it! I forgot to paste in the source of the article above, but it still should have been easily realized that I was not "claiming" that I "wrote" it because of the space after the quote. At any rate, wow, that turned into a real festival huh-I say "Uniate" and a few other things that are basically standard stuff, and get reprimanded for saying that terrible word, then I leave out a source line, and all of a sudden its a gossip fest-"he is claiming hes a PHD" and a bunch of other idiocy on and on and on - saying "Uniate" on here is a terirble breach of civility and a lapse of Christian charity and all that good stuff, yet gossiping on and on and on, ridicule, accusing me of basically being a liar and a thief, hey where are all you holier than thou people who have given up "outward piety" for working onm your inner life? I would say our out of work apparently.....oh but I think Im a PHD becaue the guy who wrote the article was one titter titter snicker snicker oh I am so funny huh yuk yuk yuk-pitiful~pitiful pitiful-and may I ask where all the monitors of Christian conduct, politeness, love, charity and understanding were when this was going on? Yeh dont say anything to offend a Roman Cahtolic or anyone else, but, uh, if you wanna character assassinate someone when you dont even have half an idea what is going on well thats fine and dandy huh? OH and Im not serious enough-how dare I come into "your" community and talk so flippant? Let me clue you in bub-this aint "your" community, it is anyone's community who gets on a computer registers to get in-and I will talk and write as I like-you do dont you? If you dont like it if it offends your sense of whatever that someone "talks like that" in "your community," I would think you need a dose of -well- you know-an over the counter pharmaceutical product that helps keep you regular-get it? Well, now that I have half began to answer all this goofiness-I am reminded of nothing so much as a class of fourth or fifth graders-thats about the mentality-I suppose I will be kicked out for answering a lot less rudely and crudely than I was treated-well I will understand, believe me-I know where I am at now-wow do I know! So all of you wonderful "Christian"people have a nice day! AND to the guy who kept saying I was approaching the Antiochian - Syrian issues with circular questioning or whatever-your OO buddy really saved the day for you-now, as far as I know, someone who refuses to recognize any of the Ecumenical Councils-much less FIVE of them-is what you call a heretic-maybe theres a new word for a person who refuses to recognize Ecuemnical Councils,-what is it, do you know? It couldnt be "Orthodox," could it? Certainly wouldnt surprise me if you said it was! Of course, you all do have a "different" tradition now, dont you?

Numerous use of ad hominems, despite previous warnings given to this poster.